The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council has conducted an audit of the Hanken School of Economics. Based on the international audit team’s recommendation and the audit report, the Evaluation Council has decided to require the institution to undergo a re-audit. In its current state the quality system of Hanken School of Economics does not fulfil the national criteria set for the quality management of higher education institutions, and thus the system cannot be said to correspond to the European quality assurance principles and recommendations for higher education institutions.
The object of the audit was the quality system that the Hanken School of Economics has developed based on its own needs and goals. The optional audit target chosen by the institution was the Assurance of Learning process.
The following were regarded as key strengths of the quality system:
n There is a strong organisational culture characterized by a strong sense of purpose, result orientation and a commitment to advancement of the university.
n Student feedback is taken seriously and leads to changes at course level.
n There are established and natural ways of involving alumni and corporate connections in the operations.
n There is a very systematic process for implementing the strategy throughout the organisation using performance agreements and development discussions.
Among other things, the following recommendations were made for the Hanken School of Economics:
n The accreditations that Hanken has pursued have led to the development of many established quality management procedures which contribute to the development of the operations. However, Hanken would benefit from integrating these into one overall quality system and defining the objectives, structure and operating principles of this system. This would provide opportunities to enhance efficiency, to reduce risk and to help Hanken respond to change.
n It would be desirable if Hanken were to develop more systematic methods to manage its quality processes in order to give more emphasis to the evaluation and improvement stages of the Hanken Quality Loop 2013.
n It is recommended that Hanken structure the documentation of the procedures, processes and systems that it uses to maintain and develop the quality of its activities, paying particular attention to access to information. This would lead to better traceability and would help identify inefficiencies and areas in need of development in its operations.
The re-audit will concentrate on the quality policy of the higher education institution (audit target 1), on samples of degree education at bachelor’s and master’s level (audit target 5) and on the quality system as a whole (audit target 6).

The present study is the first study of Danish consumers on compulsive buying. It draws on a representative sample of 1,015 Danish consumers (aged between 15 and 84 years) and extends prior research undertaken in other countries (such as Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Canada, the US). It is the first study to shed light on the situation in a Scandinavian context and is designed to allow for a comparison with the situation in other countries.

This report is a Deliverable (D 6.4) within the EU-InnovatE research project. According to the project’s Description
of Work (DOW), the aim of this report is to contribute to the development of policy tools supporting
end-user integrated and end-user lead sustainability innovations (referred together in our work as the umbrella
term Sustainable End-user Innovation - SEI). The authors’ task is to “recommend new policy instruments and
tools” and “suggest how to optimize existing policies and tools beyond the prevailing information paradigm,
including novel instruments encouraging user sustainability innovation”. As examples of the latter, the DOW
lists user innovation platforms, ‘incubators’ of companies to support inventive users, regional activities to support
user-entrepreneurs, competitions and activities of venture capital funds, pro-bono activities of consulting
companies and the like. Through our prior work deliverables, D 6.1 and D 6.2, we identified further policy
tools that could be implemented in order to promote SEI - focusing on the barriers and drivers of SEI from a
motivational, ability and opportunity perspective. These include, e.g., open source competitions, DIY courses
and groups, crowdsourcing and -funding and a myriad of other options (see D 6.1). Based on our observations
from a series of interviews with EU and national-level policymakers their recommendations are to primarily
focus on firstly, increasing awareness of SEI, secondly, develop flexible funding opportunities for SEI and
thirdly, identifying effective mechanisms for diffusion of inventions created by SEI.

Natural resource-driven development in Africa has emerged as a hot topic in recent
years. Extractive industries,1 by which is meant energy (i.e. gas, oil, and coal), minerals
and metals, are an important part of this agenda. The renewed interest among governments,
firms and donors in these industries hinges on the assumption that they will
generate foreign revenues, create jobs and boost economic growth. Indeed, Africa’s
abundant endowments of natural resources may speed up economic transformation,
economic diversification and poverty alleviation. Industrial policies are thought to
be particularly important to achieve this by helping to develop the linkages of the
extractive industries sectors and the local economy, and by using resource rents and
revenues to generate growth and employment in agriculture, industry and services
more broadly.

Good ideas and innovations are hard to spot and often
come from the most unlikely of circumstances – once
successful their value seems almost self-evident, but
in the early stages a new idea or innovation remains
largely anonymous and in dangerous waters. The
growth of the Danish windmill industry was for example
in the early stage hard to foresee. The utilization of
wind power as a source of energy was not a novel concept
in the 1970s when Riisager (a carpenter by trade)
and others began to experiment with different turbine
designs, nor was it a lucrative endeavor as it for many
years remained, from a market perspective, unprofitable.
Despite this, a small group of enthusiastic (and
idealistic) individuals managed to dramatically improve
existing designs, increasing the kW production
of turbines from 15-30 kW in 1974-1979 to 180-450
kW by 1989. The success of the Danish wind turbine
case was possible because multiple and diverse but
interlinked actors tested varying designs in different
locations, drawing both on their localized learningby-
doing knowledge but also on the successes and failures
of others. Step-by-step what had been a discarded
idea for power production became the foundation of a
large scale sustainable industry. The Danish windmill
story has arguably become an oft-repeated story, but
nonetheless it illustrates a key point: knowledge relevant
for innovation is widely dispersed and is therefore
typically outside the realm of any one individual,
firm or organization.

What is good sustainable innovation policy? And what is good governance for user-led innovation for more
sustainable products and services in specific?
The basic aim of innovation policy is to promote invention and innovation that transforms knowledge and
competence into long-term social welfare. Innovation policy for sustainable development asks what can be
done by government to support products, processes and social innovations that spur and enable more sustainable
lifestyles in specific.
From a policy maker’s perspective, there are two basic approaches to innovation policy: Either, governments
engage into “horizontal industrial policy”, i.e. they design a supportive legal and economic framework, insure
dynamic markets and promote a technology friendly “climate” in society. Or, governments engage in “vertical
industrial policy” and opt for more active - and more intruding - efforts to develop an industry or a technology
with economic incentives and industry-specific market regulation. This latter option has been criticized
by market proponents since “picking the winners” by the state instead of the market is often not very efficient
(“market knows best”). On the other hand, it has its merits in speeding up necessary changes in markets.
Both approaches are, however, focused on entrepreneurs and industries, hence on the supply side of the market.
In times of digitalization, prosumerism and blurring boundaries between supply and demand, another
focus is slowly gaining importance, namely user-led innovation for sustainable products and processes. The
present report hence focuses on the question how innovation policy can spur this kind of innovation with userentrepreneurs
on the demand side of markets in the driver seat. The report identifies the key impact mechanisms
as reported and analysed in the relevant literature. While admittedly this type of research is still scarce
and in its infancy, we know from traditional innovation policy literature that good innovation governance
• is consistent and reliable;
• supports interaction between and offers platforms for all relevant actors: market actors (both: supply and
demand), political actors, societal actors and science, also between venture capitalists and innovators/entrepreneurs;
• designs a supportive innovation infrastructure (education, physical infrastructure, etc.);
• supports a social “climate” that is open for innovation and has a culture for innovation and failure (willingness
to change, open for new opportunity, trust in whom, culture of risk);
• finds the right balance of regulation and free market; and
• designs effective incentives and support programmes.
This is also the starting point for the present report that focuses on the specific requirements of user-led sustainability
innovation.